Firearms at Bate's technical College

Grim_Night · Jan 11, 2014

deanf said:
Which is it, "with actual legal education" or "no formal legal education"?

As of right now, I have no formal legal education. But in 18 months or so, I will be a certified paralegal with an AAS degree (2 year degree) and hopefully be getting a BAS degree (4 year degree) with a focus in civil rights and constitutional law. So in about 6 quarters, I will have a formal legal education which I don't have right now.

Difdi · Jan 11, 2014

NavyLCDR said:
RCW 9.41.290The preemption statute does not reserve firearms regulation to the legislature only. The preemption statute says the "State of Washington" has the power of regulation. I would think that a firearms regulation made by a state agency could, therefore, only be challenged on the basis of the Washington Constitution and not preemption.

Probably. Another angle to approach it from is the fact that WACs generally apply to employees/personnel of a facility, not the customers it might be providing products or services too. If they want to claim you as an employee (or perhaps unpaid intern) they can...but then they have other obligations that they must fulfill.

BigDave · Jan 11, 2014

NavyLCDR said:
RCW 9.41.290
State preemption.
~~snip~~
The preemption statute does not reserve firearms regulation to the legislature only. The preemption statute says the "State of Washington" has the power of regulation. I would think that a firearms regulation made by a state agency could, therefore, only be challenged on the basis of the Washington Constitution and not preemption.

Yet State agencies have no powers to make State Laws just rules that do with operation of their respective agencies and not citizens.

Riddle me this does a State agency have the power to write a RCW?

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk

()pen(arry · Jan 11, 2014

BigDave said:
Yet State agencies have no powers to make State Laws just rules that do with operation of their respective agencies and not citizens.

Riddle me this does a State agency have the power to write a RCW?

Quasi-legislative Capacity

In this particular context, of interest is the quasi-legislative capacity ubiquitously granted to state agencies to establish the rules of their demesnes. I don't like it either, and I don't think it's Constitutional (at least, not at the Federal level), but it is the reality that is made right by the might of people with more and bigger guns than we have.

BigDave · Jan 11, 2014

NavyLCDR said:
While a state agency cannot make it a crime to possess a firearm, the state agencies do have the power to withhold services/licenses to those who do not comply with their rules. A day care center cannot obtain a license unless they agree to prohibit firearms on the premises.

Only until challenged.

J1MB0B · Jan 12, 2014

Right now the school administration is allowing concealed carry. There are still two pressing issues.

The first is what to do with campus security? They are being trained that the entire campus is a gun free zone. The mis-communication between them and the school admin could be potentially hazardous to a student that is legally carrying a firearm. Ideas?

The second is the fact that the board is in the process of changing the policies relating to firearms. They might become more restrictive, they might become less restrictive, who knows. I read all the time about a well written letter helped to get a policy somewhere changed or get an unlawful sign removed. Anybody care to help me with the wording?

Speaking of unlawful signs...
There were a couple of threads recently about someone getting signs changed at Worksource and DSHS because prohibiting firearms there was in violation of state preemption. Those are both state agencies. How does state preemption apply to them but not Bate's?

J1MB0B · Jan 12, 2014

deanf said:
Preemption is the proper argument here, but not the preemption that flows from the RCW. It is true that the RCW only applies to municipalities. State agencies are not included in the RCW. Bates Technical College (and all other public higher education facilities) are state Executive Branch Agencies.

The proper preemption argument here is the preemption that flows from the state constitution.[/COLOR]

Where did you find the info about Bate's being an executive branch agency? This is all I can find:
http://access.wa.gov/topics/government/state/branches

deanf · Jan 12, 2014

Where did you find the info about Bate's being an executive branch agency? This is all I can find:

See the orgchart.

The State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (the governing agency) is appointed by, and reports to, the governor.

The Board also submits it's budget request to the governor.

There are plenty of other references in 28B.50 RCW about The Board reporting to the governor.

The RCW notwithstanding, one can see through a simple process of elimination the state technical college system is an agency of the Executive Branch. It doesn't belong under the Judicial Branch, it doesn't belong under the Legislative Branch; the only other constitutionally authorized government branch is Executive.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 12, 2014

And executives are not supposed to be authorized to make laws.

J1MB0B · Jan 12, 2014

What gives the executive branch the authority to override state law, the state and federal constitutions, and start enacting laws and regulations?

How are "Agencies Led by Governor-Appointed Executives" bound by state preemption and "Agencies Under Authority of a Board, Council, or Commission" not bound by state preemption?

deanf · Jan 12, 2014

How are "Agencies Led by Governor-Appointed Executives" bound by state preemption and "Agencies Under Authority of a Board, Council, or Commission" not bound by state preemption?

Assuming state preemption for this discussion is 9.41.290 RCW, they are not bound. It's been quite well established that the RCW only restricts "Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities . . ." Executive branch agencies are none of these.

Executive branch agencies are restricted by the state constitution, another form of preemption.

deanf · Jan 12, 2014

And executives are not supposed to be authorized to make laws.

But they may be able to make rules that have the force of law in certain circumstances. It's not right, but it's true.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 12, 2014

deanf said:
But they may be able to make rules that have the force of law in certain circumstances. It's not right, but it's true.[/COLOR]

I agree, its not right and that is what they do. Thanks to statist courts they have upheld these unconstitutional acts.

The more people educate themselves about the proper place of our servants then maybe, hopefully one day enough will force them to remain in their legal restraints.

sirpuma · Jan 13, 2014

The College has to submit their amended rules to the legislature for approval, until then the current WAC applies. They can't just make up rules and operate against the pertaining WAC without risking some legal problems. If you keep it concealed and no one knows, then you will be carrying within your rights and within their rules. It will only become a problem if they catch you. Then you'll have a fight on your hands.

J1MB0B · Jan 13, 2014

sirpuma said:
The College has to submit their amended rules to the legislature for approval, until then the current WAC applies. They can't just make up rules and operate against the pertaining WAC without risking some legal problems. If you keep it concealed and no one knows, then you will be carrying within your rights and within their rules. It will only become a problem if they catch you. Then you'll have a fight on your hands.

The current rule states that unlawful carry is prohibited. There is no requirment in the WAC, or anywhere else in college policies that state I have to carry concealed. That is the part they are making up based on the director of human resources opinion. That said, I do carry concealed at school so that is a fight that will have to wait.
The concerning part is what changes they are making to the current WAC, and the fact that the WAC contradicts itself.

sirpuma · Jan 14, 2014

J1MB0B said:
The current rule states that unlawful carry is prohibited. There is no requirment in the WAC, or anywhere else in college policies that state I have to carry concealed. That is the part they are making up based on the director of human resources opinion. That said, I do carry concealed at school so that is a fight that will have to wait.
The concerning part is what changes they are making to the current WAC, and the fact that the WAC contradicts itself.

Yes, WE know that. But they will act the opposite if they see the firearm. It would be nice if state agencies, such as the community and technical colleges would respect our rights, but that will never happen. Government always moves toward disarmament of the people. How else do we become willing slaves.

J1MB0B · Jan 15, 2014

I found this in an attorney general opinion letter. It's about halfway down the page, http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/opinion.aspx?section=topic&id=21188#.UtYf-_uLW_J.

"Second, in interpreting a statute “each provision of a statute should be read together (in pari materia) with other provisions in order to determine the legislative intent underlying the entire statutory scheme.” State v. Chapman, 140 Wn.2d 436, 448, 998 P.2d 282 (2000). “The purpose of interpreting statutory provisions together with related provisions is to achieve a harmonious and unified statutory scheme that maintains the integrity of the respective statutes.” Id."

Does this apply to statues in general, or specifically what the AGO letter is addressing? I tried to find the case it references, but had no luck.

If this applies, it stands to reason that the section of the WAC that campus safety supervisors are using as their reason for making Bate's a gun free zone does not apply to students, right? The whole chapter they are quoting is about lending school facilities to non-students individuals, groups and organizations.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=495A-140-040
"(8) No person or group may use or enter onto college facilities having in their possession firearms, even if licensed to do so, except commissioned police officers as prescribed by law."

Grim_Night · Jan 15, 2014

People are forgetting one very important thing here...

RCW 28B.50.140
Boards of trustees — Powers and duties.

(13) Shall enforce the rules prescribed by the state board for community and technical colleges for the government of community and technical colleges, students and teachers, and adopt such rules and perform all other acts not inconsistent with law or rules of the state board for community and technical colleges as the board of trustees may in its discretion deem necessary or appropriate to the administration of college districts: PROVIDED, That such rules shall include, but not be limited to, rules relating to housing, scholarships, conduct at the various community and technical college facilities, and discipline: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That the board of trustees may suspend or expel from community and technical colleges students who refuse to obey any of the duly adopted rules;

Where does it say in there that they may adopt any rules that are a clear infringement on a student's constitutionally protected rights? State law clearly says that it is not a violation of the law for a student to carry a firearm on campus when done in a lawful manner. The state board for community and technical colleges LINK has made no rule what so ever regarding firearms lawfully possessed and carried on college campus'. So a college board of trustees making a rule prohibiting firearms, even when lawfully possessed and carried is in fact a violation of the law which is clearly outlined above "not inconsistent with law".

Simply put, a state agency can not make a rule that is an infringement of one's rights no matter how much they may way to or how much they may think they can pull the wool over our eyes. State colleges are NOT prohibited locations per Washington state law RCW 9.41.280 or 9.41.300. The administrative staff and boards of trustees seem to think that these quoted laws apply to them. They do NOT. CPTC tried saying that just because the campus had K-12 students on campus and K-12 schools within close proximity to the campus, CPTC was a protected location per 9.41.280... WRONG! And 9.41.300 dictates the other FIVE specific locations in this state where firearms are not permitted per law. State colleges are NOT in that list.

I will keep fighting this battle. I may not have had a complete victory at CPTC, but I will keep fighting till this right is recognized at all state owned and run colleges.

J1MB0B · Jan 15, 2014

sirpuma said:
The College has to submit their amended rules to the legislature for approval, until then the current WAC applies. They can't just make up rules and operate against the pertaining WAC without risking some legal problems. If you keep it concealed and no one knows, then you will be carrying within your rights and within their rules. It will only become a problem if they catch you. Then you'll have a fight on your hands.

Where can I find this info?

J1MB0B · Jan 15, 2014

So i got cites to most of the relevent, RCW's, WAC', and case law that I was looking for today. Big thanks to Grim_Night!
Now to sit down and put it all into a format that can be presented quickly and effectively at the next board meeting...

Firearms at Bate's technical College

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member